This is also implying that common everyday people actually have control or can influence the situation.
While a wealthy few in the world are the ones that can actually drive change for the better but refuse to because it would affect their wealth and power.
90% of the population wants to do something
10% of the population owns everything
The 10% who have all the control don’t mind watching the world burn as long as they keep their mansion.
90% of the population can’t do anything because they don’t have the wealth to influence anything
100% of the world is completely fine with this situation.
I get into this headspace often, but try to remember that all human systems are subject to being disrupted and dismantled, no matter their power or influence.
This is also implying that common everyday people actually have control or can influence the situation.
Here’s why I take issue with this statement:
- this ignores collective/mass action
- this disregards the few government entities that actually do serve public interests, albeit imperfectly
An example of an individual creating meaningful positive change is teachers. Most people have had a great teacher, and larger schools have greater reach and influence, thus an individual with many students over a period of time can make a big difference at the local level. And one of those students can rise to prominence and do further good.
Another is some benevolent nonprofits that seek government funding to maximize their reach and support of the community. Often they’re run by one or a small handful of folks. If they’re lucky, and prepared, they can affect positive change for many, like community garden organizers.
There can be a large volume of good change from a single person’s actions because of influence. Not saying that it’s a fast mechanism for change, but I refuse to abandon it. Because although it’s likely the only solution we have, it’s still one that is fueled by will and daily choice, which most everyone can enact in small and big ways.
Frankly, if we could just put solidarity of the working class first, we outnumber them.
I agree with you.
An apathetic populace is how despots or oligopolies consolidate or retain their power.
Activism doesn’t always work, but there are plenty of historical examples of big social changes coming on the back of direct action by the people.
On the specific topic here, of greenhouse emissions, the U.S. has been decreasing its per capita emissions for something like 15-20 years. We have a long way to go, and should be going faster, but we are making progress right now. And none of this progress was inevitable. It was specific efforts by nonprofits, by governmental entities, by private industry, and by individuals to demand lower emissions.
Past environmental successes include the elimination of acid rain, the reversal of the hole in the ozone layer, and the vast improvement in outdoor particulate pollution and smog in the past few decades. This stuff matters, we have been making a difference, and the moment we give up we will start backsliding.
I think most of us are resigned to this situation.
We’re not good at popular organizing. We’re very good at finding ways of othering factions, which the elite are glad to utilize.
We’re good at consolidating power. We’re not good at utilizing that power to serve the public. Hence billionaires don’t even think of charity work except as a means to preserve power.
The human species may be doomed to extinction or a cap on technological progress. We may just be tribal hunters too attached to dominance hierarchy to reach into space and colonize other worlds.
Or we may be stuck in a perpetual cycle where we just form feudal empires that poison the world for another epoch.
The solution — if there is one — is sociological. We figure out a way to diffuse political power so it can’t be consolidated. We fix dominance hierarchy and tragedy of the commons. We figure out a way to teach people that everybody (even the ones that disgust us) are part of the community and deserve regard.
Until we find it, we’ll continue to let elites hold all the resources and poison the earth with impunity.
The solution — if there is one — is sociological. We figure out a way to diffuse political power so it can’t be consolidated
This is the final jeopardy question… We need to focus on how to shape society to be resistant to power consolidation. Otherwise any progress is temporary at best
From an evolutionary perspective, only the ones who survive matter.
So in that spirit, the only way to create a society resistant to power consolidations is one that actively recognizes, seeks out and annihilates said power consolidations.
As otherwise, they will annihilate everything opposing them – as history tells us.
There are gentler social traditions to distribute wealth and power so as to avoid consolidation. Probably the post-colonial world is beyond that point.
A scary prospect, to be sure, but in the grand scheme of things… “The secrets of evolution are time and death” as Carl Sagan said in Cosmos.
We fix dominance hierarchy and tragedy of the commons.
Addressing fundamental flaws in the human psyche is absolutely a worthwhile endeavor.
I get the impression that, millennia from now, it might be possible for a person to look back on what humanity was before such technology was discovered. But, I’m a product of my time. I cannot fathom how that would be practical and ethical to achieve. That said, I am absolutely open to the discussion.
90% of the population wants to do something
I always thought a significant majority wanted change, but I recently learned that a surpassingly large amount of people are against it outside of my social bubble. Even young people (about 20yo).
A lot of people seem to make up their minds about these topics with very little information. They blindly repeat the things some politicians spout, even though it’s complete BS. And when I question them about it they seem to actually know very little about it. They get uncomfortable and try to avoid the discussion, but their opinions still mostly stay the same.
It’s frustrating, and it has given me a lot less hope that we will be able to deal with it.
That is it. Most people want climate change to end, but without any change for themself. That however just does not work.
The good news is that as soon as the systems of phasing out fossil fuel are in place, that momentum helps to keep it running.
Common everyday people can influence the situation. For example, we can build bombs and set them off inside gas plants.
No, I don’t expect you to become a suicide bomber. But this is the truth: how much change you can accomplish is directly proportional to how much effort you put in. I’m putting in effort.
Despite the fediverse’s reputation for leaning leftist, I feel like such a stranger with how often I find myself arguing that the collective action and solidarity of the working class can and has improved the material outcomes of nations, with or without the capital of the owner class, and with or without the approval of the government.
Fight in whatever way makes sense to you. Some people will carpool or use less hot water. Some will put peer pressure on wealthy acquaintances. Some will alter design requirements or RFQs. Some will [redacted] a pipeline. It all works towards the same end.
Yes, this is the fault of the owner class, but who do you think is going to force them to change if we all sit on our hands and say, “I dunno, man, that sounds like someone else’s responsibility.”
Hope at this point is moronic, we’re talking about mitigating disasters, not eliminating them. So right now we need panic. Panic is a very powerful tool. It gets a fire lit under our asses.
I’d say a big part of the problem is that not enough people are panicked right now.
Sure but the inverse is true too. Right now we have hope without panic. That translates to waiting for someone to come along and fix it for us.
I’m in the United States. Conservatives are currently pivoting to their new “climate change is inevitable, and therefore we must seal our borders to protect America from climate migrants and give more subsidies to big corporations and fossil fuel companies whose technology will maintain our standard of living” talking point.
The more people panic about climate change, the more persuasive that argument becomes.
Human rights are one of the first things to vanish in disasters. When people are scared, they agree to give up their rights. When people are scared, they close their eyes as the government violates other people’s rights.
And the more frightened people are about climate change, the more they’ll turn to authoritarian demagogues who promise them safety.
Hope is vital. Because once people give up hope of saving the planet, all that’s left is an ever more vicious scramble for ever fewer resources. And once you decide that’s an inevitability, the only logical thing to do is get vicious as fast as possible.
Hope is vital.
What hope? Joe Biden is forcing federal workers to drive into work and apparently we have to vote for him anyway. What hope?
In the grand scale of atrocities against humanity and the environment, I think driving to work is pretty low.
This text implies that both sides are equally wrong, which is not true. This type of message only serves to make people feel better about doing too little while corporations keep fucking the environment without any control or oversight.
How do you get that?
Too late: fuck it we’re all dead, burn petrol!
We’ll be fine: we’re good, Earth will be fine, burn petrol as you need.
Essentially saying it’s ‘too late’ tends to make someone care less about the climate, which is actually worse in practice than straight up denial because of the behavior it encourages.
All true and all, but it’s an ironic framing that implies saving human lives, since human population growth is the biggest driver by far.
Saving all diversity of life on the planet and preserving quality of life should be the stated objectives.
In that case, why are Chinas emissions hoing up, when its population is shrinking?
Population growth matters, but the real issue is consumption. Intresstingly people have fewer children in urbaized socitied, when they have all basic material needs meet and womens rights are improved. So we just have to meet everybodies needs to a reasonable level and have to reduce emissions. Population is solving itsrlf at that point. If we did that global population would peak before 2050 and fall to about 6billion by the end of the century.
human population growth is the biggest driver by far
I argue that the biggest driver for CO2 emissions at the moment is not population growth, but rather the rise of the quality of living in high population low income regions such as China, India, etc.
preserving quality of life should be the stated objectives
Does that mean you also want the many inequalities to remain? CO2 emissions per person are spread as unequal as wealth. Demanding that people are allowed to continue living far above the carrying capacity of the Earth while others live far below is not a solution to the problem.
People argue something along the lines of “spending a lot of energy gives a good quality of life” and to some extend this is true. Though when people spend an hour or two to drive to work in a private car 5 days a week that doesn’t seem like a good quality of living to me.
To fight climate change without having to miss out on a good quality of living it’s important that people get the most “bang for their buck” as far as CO2 emmissions are concerned. I argue that things like watching Formula 1 drivers, owning private jets or even just doing long communes to work by car are among the WORST bang for your CO2-buck anybody can get. Riding a bike, having a picnic in a local park or commuting via public transportation (which lets you do other things like playing on your phone, reading a book or chatting with people while waiting) seem to be way better options.
Don’t do that, don’t give me hope.
While this seems like a sarcastic comment and quote we’ve been fooled too many times and lured with false hope and illusions of having an impact while being just held as slaves, more or less.
Edit: feel free to elaborate on down vote. I am just sick and tired of trying my best for the environment and getting my ass handed to me by mega corporations and additionally being blamed, too.
You need hope.
If you have no hope, why would you try to fix something? If people don’t try to fix something, it’ll never get done.
So ask yourself, do you want a better world?
You’re giving people hope while Joe Biden is forcing federal workers to get into their car and drive into the office. Hope they can fight for something better makes people think “Well I’m not going to vote for someone who does that.”
If you turn around and say “No, no. You have to.” Now you’ve given someone hope and then just ripped it right back.
Fair point.
My counter is: I don’t think you necessarily do. A historian might have some insight on this.
I find false hope to be more damaging than not hoping but still trying.
And as to the why: because there are logical reasons to do so. It’s the right thing. I think we might get into religious understanding here, which is a fascinating thing, you see.
And what are the logical reasons to do so? Maybe an that the changes you want would leads to a better future? One could call that hope.
